The U.S. Supreme Court case Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina in 1984 revolved around the issue of gender discrimination in employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lois G. Anderson had applied for a position as Director of Recreation and Parks but was rejected by the city council despite being highly qualified for it; she alleged that her rejection was due to her sex and sued the city on grounds of discrimination. The District Court initially ruled in favor of Anderson, finding evidence supporting her claim that she was discriminated against because she is a woman. However, this decision was reversed by an appellate court which reevaluated witness credibility - something traditionally left to trial courts. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it held that findings based on determinations regarding witness credibility should not be set aside unless there's exceptional circumstances suggesting clear error from part of lower courts' judgement or if they are completely devoid any factual support in record; thus reinstating original verdict favoring Ms.Anderson. This case clarified standards for reviewing factual findings made at trial level and reinforced principle against gender-based employment discrimination while emphasizing importance respecting role district judges play determining facts during trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, Justice O'Connor argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to properly apply Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule requires appellate courts to defer to trial courts' findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Justice O'Connor believed that this standard had not been met in this case and therefore disagreed with the majority's decision. She contended that there were significant inconsistencies and contradictions in testimony given by key witnesses during trial which should have led an appellate court to question whether those testimonies were credible or reliable enough for a finding based on them not be considered clearly erroneous.